Remember When Obama Took The Guns?

[GMDino]

(03-02-2018, 09:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm seriously starting to wonder if you have suffered severe brain damage. 


 
In CA, yes, it is.



It is.



That's more Matt's belief than mine, but I get his point.



]Yes, which means they will continue to push for it and those of us who find the right important need to be mindful of that.



Except I've literally never switched.  I'll leave you to try and score more internet points, you're in full GMDabo mode.

So it's happening...except where/when it's not and "they" want it "in the end" but they won't get it but you need to keep saying they want something they'll never get because it's happening under very specific circumstances which is the EXACT same thing as "confiscating" everyone's guns. 

I guess you're just gonna keep lying and posting personal attacks.  Can't say I didn't try.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-02-2018, 09:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: Ask the courts that found against it.  I bet they explained why.    


I worked in the projects when I was in my early 20's.  You don't know anything about my "insulated life" anymore than SSF "knows" all about me.

Look at the story I quote again:

Cops "randomly" stopping and frisking turned into stopping and frisking minorities at a 2:1 ratio.  With the "1" actually having been found to have committed more crimes...yet they didn't change the ratio.  Weird.

On bolded, I call bullshit.  Serving soup in the church kitchen does not count.  I'm talking about live, on the street stuff.  For example, I was surveying a property owned by the big bosses friend, a few months ago.  At 8 am, I was approached by local "homeless" guys, asking for money.  Not only did they ask, they raised their shirts to show big knives in their waistband.  If it weren't for what I'm guessing to be a drug lookout, yelling to them "leave him alone, he's just working", I'm not sure how that moment would have turned out.

The guy on the corner that did the yelling?  Yep, he stood up, raised his arms to show a gun in his waistband..

[GMDino]

(03-02-2018, 06:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't disagree. This is where my focus on primarily Virginia politics comes into play. Our state Democratic party would turn this state redder than a cardinal if they whiffed the idea of confiscation or something like the Australia solution. I haven't really seen this trend on a national level, but regardless of all of this there is no way confiscation should be considered.

And it won't be.

It's like I have said, over and over, we need to stop listening to the extreme ends ("ban all guns" AND "my cold dead hands") and let the adults talk about what to do.

[GMDino]

(03-02-2018, 09:54 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: On bolded, I call bullshit.  Serving soup in the church kitchen does not count.  I'm talking about live, on the street stuff.  For example, I was surveying a property owned by the big bosses friend, a few months ago.  At 8 am, I was approached by local "homeless" guys, asking for money.  Not only did they ask, they raised their shirts to show big knives in their waistband.  If it weren't for what I'm guessing to be a drug lookout, yelling to them "leave him alone, he's just working", I'm not sure how that moment would have turned out.

The guy on the corner that did the yelling?  Yep, he stood up, raised his arms to show a gun in his waistband..

Again, you have no idea.  And I don't care what anyone else thinks they "know".

I worked in the projects.  I was in their homes.  I was there during the day, I was there during the night.  I was accused of being a narc. I was threatened.  I saw the worst of the worst.  Places where the security guard asked why I was there (after he came running out of the safety of his office...lol)  

And I left not because of the people or the places but because I got moved to another location further away and when another opportunity came up closer to home I took it.

So carry on with whatever fantasy you want.   I'm no badass.  Not in the slightest.  But I didn't lead an "insulated life" either.  Thanks.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-02-2018, 10:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: Again, you have no idea.  And I don't care what anyone else thinks they "know".

I worked in the projects.  I was in their homes.  I was there during the day, I was there during the night.  I was accused of being a narc. I was threatened.  I saw the worst of the worst.  Places where the security guard asked why I was there (after he came running out of the safety of his office...lol)  

And I left not because of the people or the places but because I got moved to another location further away and when another opportunity came up closer to home I took it.

So carry on with whatever fantasy you want.   I'm no badass.  Not in the slightest.  But I didn't lead an "insulated life" either.  Thanks.

Apologies, didn't mean to offend.  I can certainly understand, as my wife goes to some of those area on CPS investigations, on a regular basis.

[GMDino]

(03-02-2018, 10:08 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Apologies, didn't mean to offend.  I can certainly understand, as my wife goes to some of those area on CPS investigations, on a regular basis.

No problem.  I know I throw off the soft, middle class white guy vibe.  I just have no reason to lie about it.

I don't envy anyone who does that now anymore than when I did it.  

Always have to be safe.

:andy:

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-02-2018, 09:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: So it's happening...except where/when it's not and "they" want it "in the end" but they won't get it but you need to keep saying they want something they'll never get because it's happening under very specific circumstances which is the EXACT same thing as "confiscating" everyone's guns. 

I guess you're just gonna keep lying and posting personal attacks.  Can't say I didn't try.

How anyone can take the crap you spew on this board seriously is beyond me.  As to your last "point" you feel free to quote a post in which you caught me in a lie.  In the meantime, kindly retreat to wherever you normally dwell and leave the discussion to the adults.

[GMDino]

(03-02-2018, 11:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How anyone can take the crap you spew on this board seriously is beyond me.  As to your last "point" you feel free to quote a post in which you caught me in a lie.  In the meantime, kindly retreat to wherever you normally dwell and leave the discussion to the adults.

It’s a lie every time you say “I didn’t say that”.  (Where have we heard that one before?)

When you cite a law that TEMPORARILY makes a person give up their weapons under very specific circumstances as an example of “them” coming after all our guns.

I would think that someone who works in law enforcement would take such accusations more seriously.  ESPECIALLY someone who allegedly yelled at a random stranger to get out of his town and never come back because he asked you what time it was.  If your powers of observation are so keen perhaps others other are too and such a law is needed to protect innocent people.  And the accused gets a hearing to prove their innocence too.  That’s way t works.
Sane people (the adults) know that no one is going to take all your guns away. 

You may not get to have EVERY type of gun you want (you don’t now).

You may not get to pass on every gun that is currently legal (in one state) that society changes its mind on either.   

Times change.  Perspective changes.  We don’t prescribe cocaine for toothaches anymore because we learned more.  We don’t sell Tommy guns anymore because times changed and they were used by more dangerous people than good people.

Sorry that life isn’t perfect and you can’t do whatever you want whenever you want.

But that does NOT mean that “they” are coming for you.

That type of paranoia is dangerous.

And that is why the "adults" need to ignore that and talk about real solutions.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2018, 09:54 AM)GMDino Wrote: It’s a lie every time you say “I didn’t say that”.  (Where have we heard that one before?)

Here's a very easy way to prove this, simply pull the quotes.  I've challenged you to do this I don't know how many times, you've never done it.  I suppose you must think the accusation alone is enough proof?

Quote:When you cite a law that TEMPORARILY makes a person give up their weapons under very specific circumstances as an example of “them” coming after all our guns.

Except that's not at all what I said, Fred.  Oh wait sorry, your use of his time honored tactic of attacking an argument no one made confused me.  You were simpering about how no one was attacking Trump for saying "take the guns first, due process second".  I pointed out that Trump wasn't going to follow through on it so why worry about it.  I then pointed out to Bmore, that "take guns first, due process second" already exists in some forms.  What I said is 100% true and not at all the argument you attempted to claim it was above.  Thank you, drive through.

Quote:I would think that someone who works in law enforcement would take such accusations more seriously.  ESPECIALLY someone who allegedly yelled at a random stranger to get out of his town and never come back because he asked you what time it was.  If your powers of observation are so keen perhaps others other are too and such a law is needed to protect innocent people.  And the accused gets a hearing to prove their innocence too.  That’s way t works.
Sane people (the adults) know that no one is going to take all your guns away. 

Hahaha, I know you're getting desperate when you come crawling back to that instance.  I said, and BTW Matt and many others have expressed agreement with me (yet you haven't attacked them, I wonder why?) is that confiscation of private property with no due process is a troubling precedent.  Don't lecture me on domestic violence or its victims.  I deal with more DV victims and perpetrators in a week then you will in a life time.  Not liking a law's execution is not synonymous with disliking its intent.  Understanding that would require a degree of intelligence that you apparently lack.

Quote:You may not get to have EVERY type of gun you want (you don’t now).

As is already the case.

Quote:You may not get to pass on every gun that is currently legal (in one state) that society changes its mind on either.   

Oh, so my property will be confiscated.  Yet your argument is that they aren't trying to take away your guns.  Yet you literally just argued that this may precisely happen.  Good lord, the contradictions.  

Quote:Times change.  Perspective changes.  We don’t prescribe cocaine for toothaches anymore because we learned more.  We don’t sell Tommy guns anymore because times changed and they were used by more dangerous people than good people.

Correction, we don't sell fully automatic weapons, with very rare exceptions.  Those of us able to have this debate have already covered that topic extensively.

Quote:Sorry that life isn’t perfect and you can’t do whatever you want whenever you want.

Fred argument alert!  Claiming person made argument they never made alert! 

Quote:But that does NOT mean that “they” are coming for you.


That type of paranoia is dangerous.

LOL, "they" and "paranoia".  You are literally incapable of addressing issues without trying to portray your opponent as abnormal in some way.  I find your argument odd though, when you literally just admitted that it's very possible "they" will confiscate my personal property.  You're so bad at this you can't keep you BS straight within the same post.

Quote:And that is why the "adults" need to ignore that and talk about real solutions.

So, you're not going to post in gun control threads anymore?  Outstanding!

[GMDino]

So I shared this in the mass shooter thread.

The Florida legislature almost did something but then chickened out when their names were attached to it.

Gun lovers cheered.

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Mass-shootings?pid=522602#pid522602

But at least they had a moment of silence.  So they have that going for them.

Why they lack the stones to do anything is beyond me.

So far they have tackled porn but not the ready accessibility of certain kinds of kinds used more often than not in attacks and not defense.

[GMDino]

[Griever]

(03-02-2018, 08:31 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What exactly does screeching autisticly sound like?  

I mean, I'm sure that a person of your high morals would never use the characteristics of a disabled person, simply to amplify a political point.. 

im sorry, was my "non PC" description too much for you?

[fredtoast]

(03-02-2018, 08:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, if you remember correctly, NYC tried that.  It was called "stop and frisk", instituted by then Mayor Rudi Guliani.  From what I understand, it worked tremendously.  Thousands upon thousands of weapons were taken from criminals that were not legally allowed to possess them.  I also understand that violent crime went down during this period.  Yet, the folks from your side screamed that it was wrong to stop and frisk known criminals.  Y'all are all about government programs, until one of them actually works...  

Wow.  If you really want to strip away the Constitutional rights of individuals then you would have loved the NYC stop and frisk policy.  Unfortunately it was not really that effective.  Crime rate went down EVERYWHERE during that period of time so it is kind of hard to give credit to eliminating the individual's protection against unreasonable search and seizure for the drop in crime.

[fredtoast]

(03-02-2018, 06:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  They saw a judge, they argued their case, their argument was denied.  The restraining orders we are discussing initially allow for none of that!

Let me make this as simple as possible

All it takes to arrest a person is a sworn statement from a victim.  That is enough to take a away an individuals personal liberty until he gets in front of a judge.

All it takes to get a restraining order is a sworn statement from a victim.  That is enough to take away a persons rights to his property until he gets in front of a judge.

Both of these situations give the absolute same protection of due process.  All these claims about people being denied due process is nothing but fear mongering to play on the ignorance of the rubes who believe anything the NRA spoon feeds them.

[fredtoast]

The fact that some people are in favor of complete gun confiscation has nothing to do with reasonable gun control regulations.

That is like saying we can't have DUI laws because it is just a slippery slope that will let all the ultra conservative Christians completely out law alcoholic beverages.

You can not be against reasonable laws like gun owner licensing and gun registration just because you oppose complete confiscation. They are two totally different issues. Again this whole "slippery slope" is just fear mongering from the NRA to play on the ignorance of their brainwashed followers.

I will be the first to admit that there are some people who favor complete gun confiscation, but that has nothing to do with common sense laws like licensing requirements for gun owners and registration requirements for all guns. The reason I can say that is because I have a brain and am able to think for myself. I am strongly opposed to gun confiscation but strongly in favor of owner licensing and gun registration. I am not weakminded enough to allow special interst groups to brainwash me.

[Dill]

(03-05-2018, 01:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is like saying we can't have DUI laws because it is just a slippery slope that will let all the ultra conservative Christians completely out law alcoholic beverages.

Excellent analogy.

[Dill]

(03-05-2018, 10:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's a very easy way to prove this, simply pull the quotes.  I've challenged you to do this I don't know how many times, you've never done it.  I suppose you must think the accusation alone is enough proof?
...............

Except that's not at all what I said, Fred.  Oh wait sorry, your use of his time honored tactic of attacking an argument no one made confused me. 

Oh, so my property will be confiscated.  Yet your argument is that they aren't trying to take away your guns.  Yet you literally just argued that this may precisely happen.  Good lord, the contradictions. 

Fred argument alert!  Claiming person made argument they never made alert! 

..........................
I said, and BTW Matt and many others have expressed agreement with me (yet you haven't attacked them, I wonder why?)

......................
Not liking a law's execution is not synonymous with disliking its intent.  Understanding that would require a degree of intelligence that you apparently lack.

LOL, "they" and "paranoia".  You are literally incapable of addressing issues without trying to portray your opponent as abnormal in some way.  I find your argument odd though, when you literally just admitted that it's very possible "they" will confiscate my personal property.  You're so bad at this you can't keep you BS straight within the same post.

Yow!  Somebody's on a roll! Saving this one for future reference.

[GMDino]

To tie in with Obama taking all the guns:

One of my conservative friends posts a meme  FB about all the Chicago murders despite having "the strictest gun laws".  I was reminded of this article:


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/28/lax-indiana-gun-laws/74740388/

Quote:Is Indiana to blame for Chicago's gun violence?


INDIANAPOLIS — When President Barack Obama suggested that Indiana and other states with few gun restrictions are to blame for Chicago’s homicide problem, it rankled GOP leaders here.

The brief mention in the president’s nearly hourlong speech, which also included calls for criminal justice reforms and additional resources for police, came Tuesday during a national gathering of police chiefs in Chicago. Supporters of gun rights have cited the frequent shootings as evidence that strict gun laws, such as those in Chicago, don’t work.

“Blaming Chicago’s crime problems on Indiana is unfortunate and inaccurate,” said Matt Lloyd, a spokesman for Republican Gov. Mike Pence.

Chicago police have long complained about a steady stream of illegal firearms from neighboring Indiana, where gun control laws are much weaker.
[/url]

Police officers too often 'scapegoated' for problems in society, Obama says

“There are those who criticize any gun safety reforms by pointing to my hometown as an example,” Obama said. “The problem with that argument, as the Chicago Police Department will tell you, is that 60% of guns recovered in crimes come from out of state. You’ve just got to hop across the border.”

A report from Chicago authorities found that nearly 60% of illegal guns recovered in the city from 2009 to 2013 were first sold in states with more lax gun laws. 
The largest portion came from Indiana, which accounted for 19% of the illegal guns in Chicago.

“Blaming Chicago’s crime problems on Indiana is unfortunate and inaccurate.”
Matt Lloyd, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence's office

The report blames Indiana’s lax gun laws, which allow gun owners to sell their weapons to other people without background checks or paperwork recording the sale.

“This makes it incredibly easy for gun traffickers, violent offenders and other prohibited purchasers to buy guns undetected,” the report said.

However, Indiana lawmakers have shown no appetite for tougher gun laws.

While Chicago’s homicide count grew to nearly 400 so far this year, the Indiana legislature, where Republicans enjoy supermajorities, has rolled back restrictions.

Just this year, lawmakers repealed a prohibition on manufactured sawed-off shotguns and passed a law intended to inoculate gun manufacturers from an ongoing lawsuit filed by the city of Gary, about 30 miles southeast of Chicago in northwest Indiana. Those changes come on the heels of a measure last year allowing adults to keep guns locked in their vehicles in school parking lots.

State Sen. Jim Tomes, a Wadesville Republican who authored the two most recent measures, called Obama’s comments “absolutely ridiculous.”
“It doesn’t matter where the guns come from,” he said. “It’s a societal problem in Chicago. … I don’t know what in the world Indiana could have to do with their inability to deal with their criminal activity.”

Millions of firearms records languish at National Tracing Center

Gary Mayor Karen Freeman-Wilson, a Democrat who supports universal background checks and stronger rules for gun shows and sales, acknowledged that pushing for such laws in gun-friendly Indiana likely is impossible.

After all, this is a state where Indianapolis restaurant Papa Roux reacted to a robbery of its store this week by offering discounts to patrons if they showed a gun-carrying permit. The promotion drew huge crowds of gun-toting customers.

“The fact that you say you have to be 18 to drink is not an infringement on the 21st Amendment. It’s just the fact that in a society, in a civilized society, you need some types of rules and regulations.”
Karen Freeman-Wilson, Gary, Ind., mayor

But Freeman-Wilson, a former Indiana attorney general, said common-sense reforms don’t infringe on Second Amendment rights.

“The fact that you say you have to be 18 to drink is not an infringement on the 21st Amendment,” she said. “It’s just the fact that in a society, in a civilized society, you need some types of rules and regulations. And that’s all it would be.”

But the National Rifle Association said the Obama administration should concentrate on enforcing current laws, not creating new ones.

The organization, which wields considerable influence in Indiana, highlighted a Chicago Sun-Times article that found felons who illegally possess a gun in Chicago typically receive sentences on the low end of state sentencing guidelines. The group also said federal weapons convictions have declined nearly 35% in the past 10 years.

“If the president held a press conference tomorrow morning and directed every federal jurisdiction to round up every felon with a gun, drug dealer with a gun and criminal gangbanger with a gun, law enforcement would have thousands of violent thugs in handcuffs and squad cars by sundown,” said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, in a video response to Obama’s speech.

Troy Riggs, the former director of public safety for Indianapolis who now runs a public safety outreach program at Indiana University’s Public Policy Institute, said he welcomes national conversations about how to address gun violence, though he added that any successful efforts would have to focus on comprehensive, long-term strategies for abating crime.

“It’s not as simple as just banning weapons,” Riggs said. “I see nothing that tells me that a national ban or a national approach is going to significantly reduce gun-crime violence overnight. Remember, we have 300-plus million firearms in the United States of America. They’re not going to vanish overnight.”

Murders, shootings on the rise in Chicago

Chief Rick Hite of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, said he thinks stemming violent criminals' use of illegal guns is possible without infringing on the Second Amendment rights of responsible gun owners.

With individuals who aren’t legally allowed to carry guns or are serious violent felons, “shouldn’t we have harsher penalties relative to the acts they commit?” Hite asked.

Hite and other city officials long have advocated for mandatory minimum sentences for those who commit violent, gun-related crimes. Hite said he remains confident such measures would reduce criminal activity here, where homicides reached 116 earlier this month, outpacing last year’s recent high.

How women can look good while packing heat

An Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department study that examined homicides committed through the first half of 2014 found that up to 24% of those homicides would not have happened if the suspect or victim had been serving longer sentences for previous crimes.

“Obviously, they made it very clear that violence is part of their business, and they plan to continue engaging in those activities until we in the community make it clear it’s unacceptable,” Hite said.

Indiana bill targets lawsuit against gun maker

Indiana lawmakers recently overhauled the state’s criminal code in an effort to reduce prison time for nonviolent offenders while requiring violent felons to serve a larger portion of their sentences.

It’s one area where Obama and Hoosier lawmakers might find some agreement.

“It is possible for us to come up with strategies that effectively reduce the damage of the drug trade without relying solely on incarceration,” Obama said. “States from Texas to South Carolina to California and Connecticut have already reduced their prison populations over the last five years and seen their crime rates fall.”
[url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/18/mom-launches-gun-control-crusade/1776929/]

Ind. mom launches online crusade for gun control

But Obama said he doesn’t think those measures alone are enough.

“I refuse to accept the notion that we couldn’t have prevented some of those murders, some of those suicides, kept more families whole, protected more officers if we had passed some common-sense laws,” he said.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2018, 01:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Let me make this as simple as possible

Oh, please do.

Quote:All it takes to arrest a person is a sworn statement from a victim.  That is enough to take a away an individuals personal liberty until he gets in front of a judge.

If it's a serious crime, meaning minimally a felony.  Misdemeanors can be cited out or the person released OR pending a hearing.

Quote:All it takes to get a restraining order is a sworn statement from a victim.  That is enough to take away a persons rights to his property until he gets in front of a judge.

Except, and huge difference here, a detained person has a right to see the judge for a detention hearing quickly.  I can't speak for other states, but it's within 48 hours in CA (business hours btw).  At the detention hearing a judge will hear arguments for release either OR, with bail or with electronic monitoring.  You yourself admitted that an actual hearing on a temporary restraining order can take weeks.

Quote:Both of these situations give the absolute same protection of due process.  All these claims about people being denied due process is nothing but fear mongering to play on the ignorance of the rubes who believe anything the NRA spoon feeds them.

No, they don't give equal protection.  Making a false police report is a criminal act.  Getting a temporary restraining order and then not following through with making it permanent is not.  This is in addition to the extreme time difference before the accused is entitled to argue their side before a judge.  I am not even remotely alone in having concerns with this lack of due process, not in the United States and not in this thread.  You discount these concerns for whatever reason you choose, but to simply label them illegitimate is specious at best. 

[fredtoast]

(03-05-2018, 05:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except, and huge difference here, a detained person has a right to see the judge for a detention hearing quickly.  I can't speak for other states, but it's within 48 hours in CA (business hours btw).  At the detention hearing a judge will hear arguments for release either OR, with bail or with electronic monitoring.  You yourself admitted that an actual hearing on a temporary restraining order can take weeks.

But paying bond or paying for electronic monitoring takes away a persons property (money).  Here in TN a defendant is entitled to at least a preliminary hearing within 10 days, but if he does not have money to pay for a bond or electronic monitoring he could be in jail for months before he gets a complete trial on the charges.

Orders of Protection are almost always set on the next weeks docket after they are served.  And that is for a full hearing.

There is no difference between the amount of due process a defendant in a criminal case gets and the subject of an order of protection gets.

The big difference I see is that the standard of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt" while it is just a "preponderance of the evidence".